Links

Limited Atonement

This
third point of Calvinism (2nd Head of the Canons of Dort), is perhaps the most debated point on the doctrine
of salvation in the modern church. But interestingly, the Arminian article on
this point is the most explicit of the 5 articles of the Remonstrance:

That,
agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and
for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross,
redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this
forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of
John 3:16: “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And
in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (Remonstrance, Art. II).

Understandably, this
article,—that Christ died for the world without exception,—would be affirmed by
almost all professedly evangelical churches around the world since the majority
of such churches (esp. in America) are Arminian. But to complicate the matter,
there are those who profess to be Calvinistic and fundamental who would also
defend the Arminian doctrine on this point. This is particularly true of
churches that are professedly Dispensational (see PCC Bulletin, vol. 1, issue 51). And to further complicate the
matter, there are also churches that claim to be Reformed and Calvinistic which
would either agree to this statement wholesale or adopt an Amyraldian position
(see PCC Bulletin, vol. 1, issue 7).
Often this capitulation to Arminianism is through the influence and
infiltration of Dispensationalism into the churches. But be that as it may be,
the doctrine of Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption is often so abhorred
in various fundamental churches that members who hold to them find it
impossible to continue in fellowship and membership.

But
all these are really not that important. What is important is whether the
doctrine is biblical. If it is we must hold on to it tenaciously and preach it
unashamedly. If it is not, then we must reject it and denounce it.

It is my contention that the
Canons is right: Christ did not die for the world to save the world without
exception (Universalism), neither did He die for the world to make man saveable
(Arminianism), nor did He die hypothetically for the world, though actually for
the elect (Amyraldism).

Note that when we speak of Limited Atonement, we are not saying that
the Atonement is limited in power, we are saying that the purpose of Christ’s
atonement is specifically for the salvation of His elect alone. It is not
intended for the reprobates. To put it in another way, we are saying that
Christ suffered and died in the place of His elect (i.e. a substitutionary
death; cf. Heb 9:28) to pay the penalty of their sin, to satisfy the justice
and wrath of God and to reconcile them to God (i.e a propitiatory death, cf.
Rom 1:18). This is achieved by a double imputation on the Cross, for there the
sin of the elect throughout the ages was imputed to Christ who paid the penalty
due by His suffering and death (Isa 53:4, 6, 11; 1 Pet 2:24; Col 2:14; Heb
9:28); and there the righteousness of Christ merited throughout His perfectly
righteous life was imputed to the elect (cf. Rom 3:22, 5:17).

The intent of His death was the
salvation of His elect alone, and therefore the extent (i.e. for whom) of His
atonement is the elect alone. There is no real difference between the intent
and extent of the atonement as some have of late promoted. Calvinists may
differ on the doctrine of the Well-Meant offer of the Gospel, but that should
be treated as a different, though related subject.

We shall proceed to demonstrate that
the doctrine of Limited Atonement is Scriptural in a few steps. First, we must
show that logically only Limited Atonement makes sense. Second, we must show
that the Scripture clearly teaches that Christ did not die for everyone without
exception, and thirdly, we must answer some objections to the doctrine.

1.
Logical Derivation of
the Doctrine

In the first place, arguing
from the integrity of the 5 points of Calvinism, we note that (1) all men are
totally depraved and will die in sin unless God intervenes; and (2) God has
unconditionally elected some to salvation. Putting these two points together,
we must infer that God wills and desires the salvation only of the elect, and
therefore, it stands to reason that Christ who is God, died only to save the
elect.

In the second place, we note
that God is perfectly just and will punish all sins. Either they are punished
in Christ (for those whom He represents) or they will be punished in the
sinners themselves (for the reprobate). This being the case, if Christ died for
all the sins of all men, all men will be saved. On the other hand, if He did
not die for any one sin of any individual, that individual will have to pay for
the sin himself with eternal death: for every sin against an infinite God is
worthy of eternal death. The great puritan John Owen put the argument across
beautifully:

God
imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either
[1] all the sins of all men, or [2] all the sins of some men, or [3] some sins
of all men. If the last [3], some sins of all men, then have all men some sins
to answer for, and so shall no man be saved… If the second [2], that is it
which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins
of all the elect in the world. If the first [1], why, then, are not all freed
from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their
unbelief, they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If
not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the
punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than
their other sins for which He died from partaking of the fruit of His death? If
He did not, then did He not die for all their sins (The Death of Death in the Death of Christ [BOT, reprinted 1959],
61-2).

The Arminian concept of the
death of Christ that it simply makes salvation possible, really means that
Christ’s death is not sufficient for the salvation of anyone. This is “Limited
Atonement” where the limit is not on whom Christ died for, but on the power and
value of the death of Christ!

In Arminianism, the atonement
of Christ is like a great wide bridge that reaches half-way across, but for the
Calvinist, the atonement is like a narrow bridge that reaches all the way
across.

2. Biblical Evidence for the
Doctrine

The Biblical evidence for Limited Atonement can
be classed under two categories:

a.
Passages Showing that Christ
Did Not Die for Everyone

We
have an indication in the Old Testament that the Lord would die only for a
limited number of people. In particular, the Prophet Isaiah in speaking about
the substitutionary death of Christ tell us that Christ shall “justify many; for he shall bear their
iniquities” (Isa 53:11). In other words, Christ will justify many by bearing their iniquities, which also means He would not bear the iniquity
of everyone.

Thus,
the Lord Jesus himself, taught His disciples: “For even the Son of man came not
to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45). He did not give His
life a ransom for all, but for many. Then when instituting the Lord’s
Supper He declares: “For this is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for
the remission of sins” (Matt 26:28).

Who
is the ‘many’ that the Lord refers to? The Lord leaves us without doubt that it
is His sheep or His elect: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am
known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay
down my life for the sheep” (Jn 10:14-15). It is clear that by “the sheep”, the
Lord is referring to His sheep, for He goes on to rebuke those who are not His:
“But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep” (Jn 10:14-15). Christ, by
His own testimony died for His sheep, His people, the elect. Those who are not
His sheep are not the elect, and will not believe.

The
same thought of particularlism in the redemption purchased by Christ is echoed
by the apostles. Paul declares: “If God be for us, who can be against us? He
that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not
with him also freely give us all things?” (Rom 8:31b-32). Who is this ‘us’?
Paul does not leave us to guess: It is the elect of God, for he continues: “Who
shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth”
(Rom 8:33).

In
another passage, Paul seeking to encourage husbands to love their wives to the
point of being willing to die for them, urges: “Husbands, love your wives, even
as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph 5:25). Christ
did not lay down His life for the world, but for His bride, the Church.

This
explains why the Lord specifically indicates in His High Priestly Prayer that
He does not pray for everyone, but for as many as have been given to Him, i.e.
His elect:

“2 As thou hast given him power over
all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.…
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou
hast given me; for they are thine. … 20 Neither pray I for these
[i.e. those who have already believed] alone, but for them also which shall
believe on me through their word” (Jn 17:2, 9, 20)

It would be absurd to think of
Christ dying an agonising death for everyone in the world and then refusing to
pray for them. It has to be that He is not concerned to save the world, but to
save His elect whom He died for, and so continues to intercede for them and
them alone (cf. Heb 7:14-15).

b.
Passages Showing Christ Died to Save,
Not to Make Salvation Possible

The
Lord Jesus Christ affirms emphatically that His mission was to save the lost: “For the Son of man is come to
save that which was lost” (Mt 18:11; Lk 19:10). Never does He say that He
came to make sinners saveable. The apostles, accordingly, refers to the work of
Christ in definite terms.

Thus, the apostle Paul
declares: “Christ Jesus came into the world
to save sinners” (1 Tim 1:15); and “We were reconciled
to God by the death of his Son” (Rom 5:10).

Thus,
the apostle Peter affirms: “[Christ Himself] bare our sins in His own body on
the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose
stripes ye were healed (1Pet 2:24;
cf. 1 Pet 3:18).

Thus,
the writer of Hebrews is emphatic that Christ had already obtained salvation
for us with the completion of His sacrifice of Himself: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he
entered in once into the holy place, having
obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb
9:12).

Notice
how the apostles use the past tense in these verses to indicate that the work
of redemption is complete and our salvation depends on nothing else.

Someone
may object: “But if Christ came to make salvation possible, it would also be
right to say that he came to save sinners, just as a man who throws a life-buoy
to a drowning person is said to be his saving his life.”

But
one thing must be borne in mind: There is a colossal difference between a
drowning man and a man dead in sin. A man dead in sin cannot help himself. If
Christ merely made salvation possible, he would never be saved.

If
Christ came to save, and the salvation of the sinner depends on nothing else
but what Christ has done in suffering and dying for them, then it follows that
Christ must have died only for a limited number of sinners, for, obviously, not
every sinner is saved. Indeed, if Christ died for everyone without exception,
then God would be unjust to punish any sinner for their sin, for it would mean
that He would be punishing them twice: once in Christ, and another time in
themselves. Moreover, the idea would make God self-contradictory, for in Christ
“dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9).

3. ‘Problem’ Passages

We have seen how the Scriptures
clearly, consistently and logically show that the atonement of Christ is
limited by design. However, there are admittedly, several texts in the
Scripture, which appear to speak of the death of Christ in universalistic
terms. In this section, we must briefly deal with some of these passages. In
the interest of space, we shall not quote the verses, but do request our
readers to looks them up in the Bible.

a.John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42;
1 John 2:2, 4:14

Arminians
and those with Arminian tendencies will often cite these verses and simply
declare that “God loves the world and Christ died for the world”—by which they
mean every person who ever lived. But these verses are easily explained by the
fact that the word ‘world’ (kovsmo") has at least 8 different meanings in
the New Testament. For example, in Luke 2:1, “the world” obviously referred to
the Roman world under the rulership of Caesar Augustus; in Acts 17:24 it refers
to the entire created order; and in John 15:18, it obviously refer to the
unbelieving world. In fact, one need only to examine the 187 times the word kovsmo" occur in the New Testament to realise
that it very seldom refers to “every single human being who ever live” (such as
in Rom 3:19). Anyone who tries to use the word ‘world’ or kovsmo" to speak about Christ dying for
everyone without exception, is simply grasping at straws.

What
is the meaning of the word ‘world’ as used by the apostle John in all the
passages? Well, it cannot be “world without exception.”If this is the meaning in John 1:29 or 1 John
2:2, then God would be guilty of injustice if He punishes anyone in Hell, for
Christ would have made them in the sight of God not-guilty by taking away their
sin. If John 3:16 refers to the world without exception, then we must conclude
that God loves all who are in hell being punished for their sin, and that
passages such as Romans 9:13 and Psalm 11:5 are wrong. Again, if John 4:42 and
1 Jn 4:14 refers to the world without exception, then we must conclude that
Christ failed in His mission because it is evident that not the whole world is
saved.

Some
very good sound Calvinistic theologians such as John Owen, John Gill, A.W.
Pink, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, Herman Hanko, etc, hold that ‘the
world’ in these passages refers to the “world of the elect.” This view has
merits and fits very well with the doctrine of Limited Atonement. Personally,
however, I prefer to see it as “world without distinction organically
considered.” That is to say that God loves the world which comprises Jews and
Gentiles because of the Jewish and Gentile elect in her.

As
an illustration, I may say: “I love Aunty Amy’s bakes” even though when it
comes down to the details, some of her cakes and bread are awful to me. You
see, I can say I love her bakes and will go out of the way to get them because
she makes my favourite cakes and breads, so that overall, she is my favourite
baker. In other words, I am really using the term bakes to encompass cakes and
bread. I don’t want to say: “I love Aunty Amy’s cakes” because I really love
some of her bread too. And as my emphasis is on the fact that I really enjoy
those of her cakes and bread apart from those I dread, I speak of all her bakes
collectively or organically.

The
same is true, I believe, with the Lord’s use of the word ‘world’ that we are
considering. The point is that God has a great love for the elect both amongst
the Jews as well as the Gentiles. God does not love every Jew or Gentile, but
because He has His elect amongst the Jews and Gentiles, He speaks of loving the
world or more specifically, the world without distinction, organically
considered. This interpretationappears
to me to fit better into the contexts of the passages.

For
example, John 4:42 is a statement made by the Samaritans to indicate that
Christ is the Saviour not only of the Jews, but Samaritans and Gentiles as well
(contrast with Jn 4:42). Moreover, if John 3:16 refers to the “world of the
elect” then it seems superfluous for the Lord to say: “whosoever believeth in
him should not perish,” for all the elect will certainly believe. The fact is
that the statement makes no direct mention of the elect, but only that God’s
love is not confined to the Jews. It is true that God’s love ultimately rests
only upon the elect, but this is a proposition that must be found in other
passages. And again, note how 1 John 2:2 parallels the prophetic statement of
Caiaphas that: “Jesus should die for that nation [Israel]; And not for that
nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God
that were scattered abroad [i.e. the elect of God in the other nations in the
world]” (Jn 11:51-52). Caiaphas was prophetically saying that Christ would be
the propitiation for sins of the elect in Israel: and not for only for them,
but also for the sins of the elect of God in other nations.

b. 1
Timothy 2:4, 4:10

In
1 Timothy 2:4, Paul intimates that “[God] will have all men to be saved.”
Likewise in 1 Timothy 4:10, he speaks of the “living God” as “the Saviour of
all men, specially of those that believe.”

As
such, these two verses are also commonly used to mean that God desires to save
all men, and that the only reason why not all men are saved is because God has
left the final decision to man.

We must understand, however, that “all men” in 1
Timothy 2:4 does not refer to all men without
exception. We can be sure of this, for in the immediate context, Paul makes
it clear that “all men” refers to all classes of men. He says in the first 2
verses—

I exhort therefore, that, first of all,
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are
in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and
honesty (1 Tim 2:1-2).

On the other hand, the context of 1 Timothy 4:10
suggests that Paul is not there referring to salvation from sin and Satan, else
the verse would suggest that “all men” are in a certain sense saved. We agree
with Calvin that:

…the word swth;r is here a general term,
and denotes one who defends and preserves. He means that the kindness of God
extends to all men. And if there is no man who does not feel the goodness of
God towards him, and who is not a partaker of it, how much more shall it be
experienced by the godly, who hope in Him? (in
loc).

c. 2 Peter
3:9

This
well-known verse reads: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some
men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any
should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9).

It is not difficult to see how this would often be cited by Arminians to prove that Christ died for all men. For if, as it appears, God desires for all without exception come to repentance, then Christ must surely have Christ died for all.

However, if that is the case, then the verse would either imply universal salvation since God can and does carry out His will, or it would imply that Christ will never return! If the Lord has delayed His return because He is not willing that anyone in the world should perish, then wouldn’t He never return. After all, if Christ should return at any point, then every unbeliever at that moment will perish regardless of whether they have already been given sufficient time to repent or not.

What then? Well, the fact is that the words ‘all’ and ‘any’ in the verse is clearly restricted by the pronoun ‘us.’ Peter is clearly referring to believers (and by extension all the elect) when he says “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise… but is longsuffering to us-ward”
(cf. 2 Pet. 1:1-4; Acts 2:39). Indeed, what Peter is saying is that the Lord is
not willing that any of the elect should perish, and therefore, He will return
only after the full number of the elect has been effectually called.

d.
Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:22;
2 Corinthians 5:14-15

The surface reading of 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:18 does
suggest that Christ died for all. But we need not take much effort to discover
that the ‘all’ in the context of both verses mean “all the elect” as contrasted
with all who are represented by Adam. Likewise in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, Paul
is writing to encourage the believers that Christ died for them and therefore,
they “should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for
them.” The verse would not make sense if ‘all’ refers to everyone in the world.

e. 2 Peter
2:1

This verse reads—“But there
were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false
teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying
the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

On the surface, this verse
appears to suggest that Christ died to purchase redemption even for the false
teachers and prophets.

But again, it cannot be that
anyone purchased by Christ could perish (Rom 8:34-35). Scripture must interpret
Scripture, and no interpretation must contradict another interpretation, for
all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Therefore, it is imperative that
we find an interpretation that is consistent with whatever else has been
established as true. With this in mind, one compelling interpretation for 2
Peter 2:1 is that Peter is actually using an ad hominemargument rather
than stating a doctrinal proposition. By this argument, he is suggesting that
the false teachers actually claim that Christ bought them too.

Conclusion

We
have shown that Limited Atonement is a biblical doctrine. The Arminian, rather
than having an atonement that is unlimited, is really propounding an atonement
of Christ that is weak and powerless to save. Worse than that, it makes God a
failure because He desires to save all mankind, but His plan has largely been
frustrated because the greater part of all mankind is currently suffering
eternal damnation because of unbelief. In fact, if it is true that it is God’s
will or desire that all mankind be saved, then He would not only be a failure,
but would also be contradictory, for it is surely by the appointment of God
that the greater part of all nations in Old Testament times was in darkness,
and a large number of people in the world today are without any opportunity to
hear the Gospel. It is no wonder that Arminianism leads so easily to
liberalism. After all, the god pictured in Arminianism is an impotent god who
is helpless to save. How could anyone of us knowing this fact, be apathetic as
to whether Calvinism or Arminianism is right?

It
has often been objected that the doctrine of Limited Atonement makes it
impossible to preach the Gospel. And so it has been said that anyone who
believes in Limited Atonement and cannot tell an unbelieving sinner that Christ
died for him is a hyper-Calvinist. This strange definition of a
hyper-Calvinist, however, rather than proving that Limited Atonement is wrong
shows how far removed from the Scripture is the modern conception of Gospel preaching,
for as John Owen has astutely observed:

When God calleth upon men to believe, he doth
not, in the first place, call upon them to believe that Christ died for them,
but that there is no name under heaven given unto men whereby they might be
saved but only of Jesus Christ, through whom salvation is preached;… this one
thing… is a sufficient basis and ground for all those general precepts of
preaching the gospel unto all men… (The
Death of Death in the Death of Christ [BOT, reprinted 1989], 186).

Having said this, it should be
noted that we are not saying that Christ’s death is not sufficient, or powerful
enough to save everyone if God intents to save everyone. Certainly it is. The
apostle Paul said to the Ephesians: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and
to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to
feed the church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood.” Notice
how he speaks of the blood shed as God’s blood. If this is so, then surely it
is infinitely powerful.

However,
since Christ did not intend for the atonement to be for anyone else other than
the elect, it is superfluous and misleading to use the phrase “sufficient for
the world, efficient for the elect.” Generally, those who use this phrase use
it either to tone down the perceived harshness of the doctrine of Limited
Atonement, or to give a pseudo-theological basis for preaching an Arminian
gospel which appeals to sinners by stating that Christ died for them,—rather
than simply presenting the gospel and issuing a call to repent and believe.

But
really, to use the phrase would be like a personnel manager of a large company
saying to all its job applicants that the company is large enough to take
everyone, but only a predetermined number will be given the job. How does that
help the applicants? How does it tone down the ‘harshness’ of rejection? How
does it give basis for telling every applicant that they are wanted?

The fact is that in discussing Limited Atonement we are dealing with
the design, extent and intent of the atonement. The question of sufficiency
adds nothing to the understanding of the doctrine, but tends rather to confuse
and to encourage practices that are inconsistent with it.W